Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game

[Mano]

My top 5 All Time

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Shaq
5. Olajuwon

The top 3 are clearly in a tier above everyone else, IMHO.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
KC -

Assani's habit of using arguements and cherry-picked stats when they suit his point of view and ignoring them when they don't is annoying. I'm calling him on it in this glaring example. If you think that's gaying up the thread, then i'm sorry.

All - Moses Malone needs more love in this thread. The guy definately belongs on any top 10 big man list.

[/ QUOTE ]

teamdonkey, please show me one post ever where I've defended Nash saying that championships or PER doesn't matter. You can't. In fact, on many occassions, I've gone on record as saying that Nash's lack of a title is what keeps him from the truly elite.

[Jack of Arcades]

I've bumped the Nash thread for you and td, Assani. There's even a question there.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duncan averages 21.8, 11.9, and 3.2. Hakeem averages 21.8, 11.1, and 2.5. And thats not even factoring in pace and era.

Hakeem's career PER is 23.6, Duncan's is 25.2.

[/ QUOTE ]

these numbers include Hakeem's last 6 years, where he was no where near as productive as the first 12. FWIW Hakeem's averages through his first 10 seasons are 23.5/12.5/3.6. If Duncan plays 8 more years (which he probably won't, no offense to him, an 18 year career is unreal) his overall numbers will dip well below Hakeem's.

[ QUOTE ]
More titles despite having at best a similar cast over the coures of his career, better stats despite playing on a slower paced team and in a lower scoring era, more awards and honors, better PER....how can you say "i'm not sure how anyone can argue on Duncan's side"?

[/ QUOTE ]

comparing number of titles is a poor way to compare players, and especially here. Hakeem had to compete against the best player and the best team in NBA history, as well as another historically great team (Jazz), while Duncan has not. Stats are slightly in favor of Duncan because he's still in his peak. Comparing peak seasons or first 10 years and it's clear Hakeem's stats are better.

I'll say it again, Hakeem was better offensively and defensively, and it's not really that argueable.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL at the Jazz being "another great team." Kobe/Shaq's Lakers were way better than those Jazz- the two main stars are better and the supporting cast.

And since Hakeem NEVER FACED MJ'S BULLS IN THE PLAYOFFS, you can't use that as an excuse for them not winning more.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at your LOL. you consistantly have a hard on for players you've seen play, and underrate earlier players. Kobe on those early Lakers teams being better than Stockton is the most rediculous thing you've posted yet in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kobe during the Lakers(and Spurs) championship seasons was better player than STockton ever was. Go start a new thread asking people who was better, those Jazz teams or those Lakers teams. You can't honestly believe that the Jazz were better, can you?

So since Hakeem never played MJ's Bulls and since the Lakers were better than the Jazz, then the statement that Hakeem didn't win as much as Duncan just because there were better teams in the league then is flat out wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got in at the tail end of this and am not going through each post.....but a big LOL to whoever tried to compare supporting casts of Duncan and Hakeem.

You're telling me winning championships with David Robinson (granted, past his prime), Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker (all of them all-stars), Bruce Bowen, and now Michael Finley is "around the same" as winning titles with Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Otis Thorpe, rookie Sam Cassell, rookie Robert Horry, Matt Bullard...and one year take Thorpe away and add Drexler in his second-to-last season? Other than Drexler (and notably, NOT in his title season with the Rockets, whom he was only with for about 25 percent of the season), who on this list has ever even made an All-Star team? I can answer that for you...Cassell, one time, 9 years afterwards when with the T'Wolves. Other than that, NO ONE.

Duncan's got two other modern-day and three other overall (with Finley) All-Stars just on THIS year's team. Plus, he has 7-time All-NBA Defender (3-time Defensive POY runner-up) Bruce Bowen helping anchor the defense that has been the catalyst for the last two championships (and the one that's about to happen). Oh, and let's not mention how much better coaching Duncan's had to work with than Hakeem. Pop >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Drunk Rudy T. That difference accounts for another All-Star TD's had that Dream never did.

So, make numerical comparisons all you want (btw, you've gotten pwned so far in that discussion...Dream is CLEARLY better to this point in his career...don't punish him for his longevity and declining numbers late...celebrate him for continuing to be decently good for as long as he was), but don't pretend for a second that the supporting casts of the Houston title teams is really very close at all to the supporting casts of the SA title teams.

Oh, and quit killing Dream for never playing MJ in the playoffs. It's not Dream's fault. Like I said, Dream had no team around him (MJ's supporting cast was CLEARLY better just by saying "Scottie Pippen," not to mention some other very good role players), and it's not Dream's fault MJ decided to whiff at curveballs when the Rockets were at their peak. Those would have been fantastic finals series if the Bulls had made them. And have no doubt, the '95 Rockets team that swept the Magic would have been the toughest team the Bulls WOULD have faced in the Finals...had Michael "gelled" with the team in the same amount of games it took Drexler to gel with Hakeem.

Nevertheless...Hakeem > Duncan at basketball at this point. Longevity plus years of dominance at his position are simply greater IMO. At the end of TD's career, we'll see if his gap in team dominance is enough to outweigh that.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duncan averages 21.8, 11.9, and 3.2. Hakeem averages 21.8, 11.1, and 2.5. And thats not even factoring in pace and era.

Hakeem's career PER is 23.6, Duncan's is 25.2.

[/ QUOTE ]

these numbers include Hakeem's last 6 years, where he was no where near as productive as the first 12. FWIW Hakeem's averages through his first 10 seasons are 23.5/12.5/3.6. If Duncan plays 8 more years (which he probably won't, no offense to him, an 18 year career is unreal) his overall numbers will dip well below Hakeem's.

[ QUOTE ]
More titles despite having at best a similar cast over the coures of his career, better stats despite playing on a slower paced team and in a lower scoring era, more awards and honors, better PER....how can you say "i'm not sure how anyone can argue on Duncan's side"?

[/ QUOTE ]

comparing number of titles is a poor way to compare players, and especially here. Hakeem had to compete against the best player and the best team in NBA history, as well as another historically great team (Jazz), while Duncan has not. Stats are slightly in favor of Duncan because he's still in his peak. Comparing peak seasons or first 10 years and it's clear Hakeem's stats are better.

I'll say it again, Hakeem was better offensively and defensively, and it's not really that argueable.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL at the Jazz being "another great team." Kobe/Shaq's Lakers were way better than those Jazz- the two main stars are better and the supporting cast.

And since Hakeem NEVER FACED MJ'S BULLS IN THE PLAYOFFS, you can't use that as an excuse for them not winning more.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at your LOL. you consistantly have a hard on for players you've seen play, and underrate earlier players. Kobe on those early Lakers teams being better than Stockton is the most rediculous thing you've posted yet in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

My friend,

I think that you are 100% mistaken here. I have gone on record numerous times saying that you and many others overrate players from the 80s- in other words, I think that you are the one being biased.

Want some proof that I'm not biased? In the Steve Nash thread I ranked my top 30 players of my lifetime.

Now lets divide into two groups:

Group A: The "80s generation". We'll define these players as those who were drafted or entered the league in 1985 or before.

Group B: The "90s/00s generation". We'll define these players as those who were drafted or came into the league in 1986 or after.

Of my top 2, 1 of them is from A and 1 is from B

Of my top 4, 2 are from A and 2 are from B

Of my top 6, 3 are from A and 3 are from B

Of my top 8, 4 are from A and 4 are from B

Of my top 10, 5 are from A and 5 are from B

Of my top 12, 6 are from A and 6 are from B

Of my top 14, 7 are from A and 7 are from B



Thats pretty damn unbiased if you ask me. Now let me ask you: Who are your top 3??? Let me take a wild guess...they're all from group A(MJ, Bird, Magic)??? What about your top 5? Let me take another wild guess....other than Shaq, all of them are from group A(MJ, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem)?


You tell me who is being biased here.

I have been wrong on many occassions. I will sometimes be hypocritical in my logic. I will sometimes overlook certain aspects of things. But I really don't think anyone can accuse me of being biased, being a homer, or being stuck in my opinions. Hell, if I never came out and told people that I was a Wizards fan, most of you wouldn't even be able to tell- thats because I usually leave my personal feelings alone when debating.

[Assani Fisher]

Alright, I'm going to try to spell out my pro-Duncan argument here.

First off, why do I think hes so underrated? Its simple: 1.A lot of people don't like him or the Spurs and we have a tendency to underrate people we don't like even sometimes subconciously and 2.He is very boring and unflashy and we have a tendency as fans to underrate basic, fundamental players.

My biggest argument for Duncan is what hes doing with his supporting cast. How many great teams are there in the history of basketball? Well in my lifetime I can think of 5: Duncan's Spurs, MJ's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, Shaq's Lakers, and Bird's Celtics. Obviously Russell's Celtics were a great team too. I'd say that those 6 are clear and away the top tier of all time teams(note: Perhaps Mikan's Lakers should be on the list, but I feel completly unqualified to discuss them because I simply don't know enough about them).

I believe that two things makes Duncan's squad unique here:

1. The cast around him has changed a ton. Consider this: Other than Duncan, no player that was on the 1998-99 championship team is on this year's team that is favored to win the title. It literally is a totally different team. Russell did this as well, but none of the other star players on these teams did this...they all had the same key players around them the entire time.

2. The 2nd best player of Duncan's teams the past few years. Let me list a grouping of players:

Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker(or Manu Ginboli), Kevin McHale, Bob Cousy, Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Which of these players doesn't look like he belongs?



Its amazing to me how highly regarded some of you are acting like Ginboli and Parker are. Here lets do a little exercise....suppose that we're drafting a team for next year and all we care about is winning next year, so we ignore age and potential. How many players in the NBA would we DEFINITELY take over either of them? Heres my list:

1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Chris Bosh
5. Dwight Howard
6. Melo
7. Dirk
8. Tracy McGrady
9. Chris Paul
10. Kevin Garnett
11. Tim Duncan
12. Amare Stoudamire
13. Dixon
14. Steve Nash
15. Pau Gasol
16. Gilbert
17. Joe Johnson
18. Deron Williams
19. Brand
20. Pierce
21. Deng
22. Boozer
23. Marion
24. Shaq
25. Kidd
26. Billups
27. Redd
28. R Allen
29. Yao

Those are the definites. I can think of at least 10-15 more that would be close such as Okafor, Caron Butler, Kevin Martin, G Wallace, Vince, J Smith, B Davis, J Howard, B Wallace, Heinrich, Barbosa, AI, Prince, and so on.

In short, the Spurs 2nd best player is somewhere around the 30th-45th best player in the league. Now thats not bad, but its hardly what you'd think of when you think of a dominant team, no?

I believe the following 3 statements to be facts:

1. Tim Duncan is favored to win his 4th title in just his 10th year in the league.

2. Hes done it with a very good but not phenomenal supporting cast

3. He did it despite having to contend with another one of the 6 greatest teams of all time


Basketball is all about winning. What else does Duncan have to do to convince you guys?


Regarding Duncan vs Hakeem, I think that several of you aren't looking at the stats fairly. Even ignoring the tail end of Hakeem's career, Hakeem's stats are just slightly better than Duncans. Now factor in the facts that:

-Hakeem played in a higher scoring era
-Hakeem's teams played at a faster pace
-Hakeem played more minutes

And I think that Duncan's stats are more impressive.

I will admit that Hakeem's first title had a worse supporting cast than any of Duncan's(although the 2002-03 team is very close, as Ginobli was just a bench player then and Parker was good but not close to an all star yet). I think that Hakeem's 2nd cast was better than Duncan's 02-03 cast.

I rank Duncan as either the 2nd or 3rd best player of my lifetime. I rank Hakeem as the 6th or 7th best(KG is right there too)...so its really not a huge gap at all, and the differences are tiny.

One thing I hate about heated debates like this are how each side argues as if it isn't even close(because if they didn't then it'd make their argument look weaker)...fact is, these players are very closely ranked and without watching every single game they ever played, it really is somewhat of a tossup. Hell, I'd bet that you could find different NBA scouts that would agree with both sides here.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]



I got in at the tail end of this and am not going through each post.....but a big LOL to whoever tried to compare supporting casts of Duncan and Hakeem.

You're telling me winning championships with David Robinson (granted, past his prime), Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker (all of them all-stars), Bruce Bowen, and now Michael Finley is "around the same" as winning titles with Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Otis Thorpe, rookie Sam Cassell, rookie Robert Horry, Matt Bullard...and one year take Thorpe away and add Drexler in his second-to-last season? Other than Drexler (and notably, NOT in his title season with the Rockets, whom he was only with for about 25 percent of the season), who on this list has ever even made an All-Star team? I can answer that for you...Cassell, one time, 9 years afterwards when with the T'Wolves. Other than that, NO ONE.

Duncan's got two other modern-day and three other overall (with Finley) All-Stars just on THIS year's team. Plus, he has 7-time All-NBA Defender (3-time Defensive POY runner-up) Bruce Bowen helping anchor the defense that has been the catalyst for the last two championships (and the one that's about to happen). Oh, and let's not mention how much better coaching Duncan's had to work with than Hakeem. Pop >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Drunk Rudy T. That difference accounts for another All-Star TD's had that Dream never did.

So, make numerical comparisons all you want (btw, you've gotten pwned so far in that discussion...Dream is CLEARLY better to this point in his career...don't punish him for his longevity and declining numbers late...celebrate him for continuing to be decently good for as long as he was), but don't pretend for a second that the supporting casts of the Houston title teams is really very close at all to the supporting casts of the SA title teams.

Oh, and quit killing Dream for never playing MJ in the playoffs. It's not Dream's fault. Like I said, Dream had no team around him (MJ's supporting cast was CLEARLY better just by saying "Scottie Pippen," not to mention some other very good role players), and it's not Dream's fault MJ decided to whiff at curveballs when the Rockets were at their peak. Those would have been fantastic finals series if the Bulls had made them. And have no doubt, the '95 Rockets team that swept the Magic would have been the toughest team the Bulls WOULD have faced in the Finals...had Michael "gelled" with the team in the same amount of games it took Drexler to gel with Hakeem.

Nevertheless...Hakeem > Duncan at basketball at this point. Longevity plus years of dominance at his position are simply greater IMO. At the end of TD's career, we'll see if his gap in team dominance is enough to outweigh that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few points:

-As I just said, when you adjust for era, pace, and minutes played, I don't think Hakeem's stats are any better

-I brought up the fact that he never played MJ in the playoffs to debunk the thought that Hakeem didn't win just because he played in a tougher era.

-Poppovich, is a career 25% winner without Duncan(granted its a small sample size of only one season)

-MJ's Bulls would've won 8 in a row if he didn't retire. Maybe the Rockets would've taken them to 6 games.

-

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
And have no doubt, the '95 Rockets team that swept the Magic would have been the toughest team the Bulls WOULD have faced in the Finals

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I'm not even sure they are in the top half.

[MEbenhoe]

Championships mean absolutely nothing in terms of how good an individual player is. Until you understand that, having a discussion on this is pointless.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And have no doubt, the '95 Rockets team that swept the Magic would have been the toughest team the Bulls WOULD have faced in the Finals

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I'm not even sure they are in the top half.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Clark here. The Rockets teams won 58(2nd seed in west) and 47(6th seed in west) games...they weren't that dominant. Moreover, they were pretty on dimensional with just Hakeem.